Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

So, Let’s talk about why Barry won’t talk about the Money Laundering //Financial Fraud angle in the Shockome case that helped cost him his law license, and why Mo Hannah (who he is promoting a certain book with) won’t talk about the HHS funding of the fatherhood movement, and why neither of them (OR the NCADV) cares to mention that this comes from Title IV diversions, i.e., federal money that otherwise might actually help minor children, and the households they live in!

After all, that aspect of the particular provider was exposed – even in the local newspapers — back in 2004 !!! and a conviction of grand theft, in June 2006!

This is a wonderful (sic) summary of the situation from a yahoo on-line group about familycourtreform. Now, there’s a lot of that going around, but this one I believe relates to the LIz Richards/NAFCJ.net stream, and she does know what she’s been talking about for years (not that others of us haven’t continued researching and blogging — and being ignored by the advocacy groups more interested in moving product and pushing their personal professions….

Towards the bottom I also have some links to the wonderfully professional-looking newsletters and website pushing “Centers for Dispute Resolution,” ADR, and Mediation as a tool to resolve custody dispute. Ms. Viola Stround (and others like here, probably) were definitely there. So those professional publications should be compared with the resulting fraud investigations, although probably not enough of the latter. In this one, it turned out the County was disbursing funds to a nonprofit which hadn’t registered as a charity with the state of New York…..

Please circulate if nothing else, this link, save the material, and encourage people to think about it! Thanks: Read the entire article — it speaks volumes!

Barry Golstein is now, with Mo Hannah, presenting himself as an expert, and speaker re Domestic Violence Child Abuse and Custody. (see Times UP! article here):

Monday, November 21, 2011
U. S. Department of Justice v. Custody Court System
photo courtesy of Family Court Crisis-Abusers Getting Custody!

By Barry Goldstein

Protective mothers have been complaining about mistreatment by the custody court system, but have routinely been dismissed as “disgruntled litigants.” As recently as the beginning of the Battered Mothers Custody Conferences in 2004, there was little professional support for protective mothers. The mothers’ complaints have now been confirmed and supported by the domestic violence community, many women’s organizations, numerous governmental agencies, many in the academic community and a substantial body of research such as contained in our book DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY.

Last summer at the NCADV Conference, Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan and some of his colleagues presented their findings from a major Department of Justice study that confirms the findings in our book and other research that the present custody court practices for domestic violence cases are deeply flawed . . .

. . . [[Mr. Goldstein has his premise, which is the trouble is, the courts need better experts — take for example, US…]]

One of the big obstacles to recognizing valid abuse complaints is the common use of mental health and other professionals without expertise in domestic violence. The main purpose of considering domestic violence in custody cases is to protect the safety of children. Nevertheless the evaluators relied on by custody courts rarely know how to conduct a safety assessment or what behaviors have been associated with higher lethality and other dangers. The evaluators do not understand domestic violence dynamics and often are unfamiliar with the effects of domestic violence on children or other information based upon the specialized body of scientific research that could be used to better understand domestic violence issues and recognize truthful allegations of abuse.
. . .
We need much more and better trainings for court professionals, but there is also the danger that attending trainings can give judges and other professionals a false sense of confidence in their understanding of domestic violence. The findings by Dr. Saunders and his colleagues that most court professionals have inadequate training in domestic violence confirms our concern that in most cases the professionals relied on by the court are not qualified to participate in a domestic violence case without the assistance of a genuine expert. Even if the judge has received good training the court is likely to be influenced by unqualified evaluators and other court professionals.

The failure to possess adequate training in domestic violence means that it will be difficult for these professionals to recognize and respond effectively to domestic violence, but the widespread belief in the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse is a bias that strongly undermines the cases of protective mothers.

{{On, and on, and on he drones about the improper “training” ….}}

The reliance on court professionals with inadequate training and belief in the myth takes place in the context of many other common mistakes discussed in earlier research. The courts cannot protect mothers and children in domestic violence cases if they cannot recognize domestic violence when it is present. . . . .[[finally, a friendly reminder how to correct the “inadequate training” — use our book…]]

The research contained in our book and elsewhere supports this understanding and analysis. We discussed the common mistake of custody courts that treat the mother’s actions as a litigant as if they were an indication of her behavior as a parent. . . . Abusers tend to be extremely manipulative and so after their abuse that the judge does not see, come to court calm and cooperative. Court professionals are often fooled by this act.

…The Department of Justice study establishes that these flawed practices lead to decisions that hurt children.

{{Judges no doubt will welcome the characterization as being gullible and easily fooled, but a man who was suspended from practicing law in 2009…}}

Next, the fatherhood multimillion federal funding initiatives in place since, oh, about 1995 or so — are just a cottage industry…

Cottage Industry Supporting Abusive Fathers

We often hear complaints about corruption in the custody court system. This belief is supported by the many cases in which courts make findings that are far removed from a fair evaluation of the evidence and decisions that seem to be disconnected from the well being of the children involved. There are cases of outright corruption such as the Garson case in Brooklyn, New York, but more often, I believe courts create the appearance of corruption because of bias, ignorance and deeply flawed practices.

One of my concerns with complaints about corruption is that it makes it harder for judges in the broken system to hear the complaints and create the reforms that are needed. An important contributing factor to the widespread belief in corruption is the cottage industry that has been created to support abusive fathers.

Most contested custody cases involve abusive fathers seeking custody as a tactic to pressure their victims to return or punish them for leaving. Domestic violence is all about control so these abusive fathers usually have controlled the family finances and have these resources to support their custody litigation. Some lawyers and mental health professionals have figured out that they can make a large income by supporting practices and approaches that support abusers. We often see them advertise as supporting “fathers’ rights.” In many cases we see fathers’ attorneys and GALs promoting the appointment of evaluators who support abusive fathers. It is particularly frustrating when judges refer to these professionals who regularly support abusers as “neutral professionals.”

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web site http://www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

---

---

This was written fully five years after the Viola Stroud grand larceny conviction went down (seven years after it was exposed and reported) and Mr. Goldstein still has not incorporated this line of thinking into his work (nor is he about to). I tried to raise the issue to him by email ca. 2011, but overall, they seem to be on a certain theme, and selling the book…

---

In this post, there is published evidence that the supervised visitation provider in this case was later convicted of grand larceny.

For originators of the term “access/visitation” see Children’s Rights Council and David Levy; for who ramrodded this onto the tail end of welfare reform ca. 1996, my understanding is that this was Ron Haskins. We should ALL understand that supervised visitation services can access grants from two funding streams — Safe Havens (the DOJ side) and Access/Visitation as part of fatherhood promotion (the HHS side).

The prominent Genia Shockome case is often mentioned (in certain circles) completely absent the element of a supervised visitation provider in her case having later been convicted of grand larceny, exposing serious weakness in the system, particularly one that (as it involves notably Missing MOney) raises the question of whether some of the missing money was turned into kickbacks, and may have some bearing as to who got assigned.

---

A woman involved in the Genia Shockome case (her supervised visitation provider, Viola Stroud) was convicted, having been under investigation since 2004, and reported here in 2006. Yet in current organizations seeking to fix the family courts, which routinely accept “supervised visitation” as a good idea, I found one of the four members of this coalition promoting a 2007 article –featuring the Shockome case, and complaining about custody getting to batterers — which made NO reference to this knowledge. Is that negligent reporting or what?

I’m putting up a quick post to preserve the remaining on-line documentation of this case in particular, and to call attention to the problem. I in no way pretend that this post is thorough discussion — it’s a quick post, that’s all!

---

(NOTE: date is June 28, 2006 in the Putnam County Recorder, link available above): Mahopac Woman Convicted of Grand Larceny Viola Stroud abused responsibility as guardian of incpacitated personsPutnam County District Attorney Kevin L. Wright announced the grand larceny conviction of Viola Stroud, age sixty two of Mahopac, after a long investigation. regarding her activities as a court appointed guardian on behalf of incapacitated persons. Mr. Wright said Investigator Edward Johnston of the District Attorney’s Office, arrested. Stroud on August 26, 2005, capping a year long probe of her activities by Wright’s Office. County District Attorney Wright said Stroud entered a guilty plea June 16, 2006, before County Court Judge Richard Molea, to Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, a Class D Felony and faces jail, probation or a combination of both at sentencing which is scheduled for August 25, 2006. Stroud will also be ordered to make restitution of $3,150 to the remaining victim in the investigation.Stroud had already been court ordered to repay over $30,000 in. restitution. regarding her illegal handling of such client fiduciary responsibilities, but had not been charged criminally. District Attorney Wright said her June 16th felony criminal conviction for theft of funds, which Stroud had claimed were monies owed to her for services she performed, showed that Stroud’s actions went well beyond her original explanations of her poor bookkeeping as the cause her difficulties with the law. Wright said that anyone taking advantage of a special relationship to defraud an incapacitated person was a loathsome, vile act and would be prosecuted criminally by the Putnam County District Attorney’s Office.Ms. Stroud was represented by Timothy Curtiss of Carmel. Chief Assistant District Attorney Christopher York together with Inv. Johnston. conducted the investigation of the case for the District Attorney’s Office. Judge Molea was brought up from Westchester County to hear the case due to the recusal of Putnam’s two County Court Judges, who as many of the other judges throughout Putnam over the years, had become familiar with Stroud in her various capacities as head. of Little Angels a court family visitation service, or as head of the Alternate Dispute Resolution. (ADR) Program in the Town of Carmel Justice Court. Westchester County to hear the case due to the recusal of Putnam’s two County Court Judges, who as many of the other judges throughout Putnam over the years, had become familiar with Stroud in her various capacities as head. of Little Angels a court family visitation service, or as head of the Alternate Dispute Resolution. (ADR) Program in the Town of Carmel Justice Court.

---

COMPARE with related article as posted by CASAFECHILDCOALITION.org member, “ISSB” (Incest Survivors Speakers’ Bureau) under Links and Resources, in this section:

Advocacy and LegislationCalifornia Safe Child Coalition (the coalition iSSB is a member of) Center for Judicial Excellence (another member of the coalition) National Association to Protect Children (Protect.org) [[I DNK and haven’t looked at this group yet] California Protective Parents Association (CPPA) (yet another member of the coalition) Courageous Kids Network (connections to the Holly Collins family (i.e., her daughter Jennifer) whose story CJE promotes, relentlessly)… Justice for Children (CJE refers to) Stop Family Violence (a nonprofit project of the Tides Foundation, Irene Weiser: reports and conferences) Small Justice – Film Review Mothers of Lost Children (connections with originators of CPPA, above) CA Coalition Against Sexual Assault Research and EvidenceArticle reviewed by Harry Croft, MD fromHealthyPlace.com : What is False Memory Syndrome? The Leadership Council: How often do children’s reports of abuse turn out to be false? Feminista Article:  False Memory Syndrome: A False Construct Child Trauma Academy:  The Neuropsychiatric Impact of Childhood Trauma Merrilyn McDonald, M.S.W.: Myth of Epidemic False Allegations of Sexual Abuse Newsweek article 2007: Why Parents Who Batter Gain Custody — this story was only published a month later. Why no reference to the woman convicted of grand larceny and her connection to Genia’s troubles as a mother? International Society for Study of Trauma and Dissociation

---

I am reposting this after having to read about the ridiculous “Our Broken Courts Initiative” promotion by the Cummings Foundation, and seeing its participants (and publicist, Ms. Russell among others), although I posted in July 2011 some more details of this particular situation around the fraudster supervised visitation provider, conflicts of interest, and even put up the nonprofit tax returns of the center in question.

They STILL have not acknowledged the existence of a Supervised Visitation Network with close connections to the courts and federal funding. HEre is from the SVN “History” page, said history begins approximately 1992 (per the organization) and from the start was international, not just USA:

http://www.svnetwork.net/history.asp
2007 Shelly La Botte, Nadine Blaschak-Brown and Sonia Melara host Celebrate-Educate-Innovate, May 9-12 in Millbrae, California. This annual conference is held in conjunction with the Judicial Council, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Access to Visitation Grant Program, which celebrated its 10-year anniversary. This conference marks the first time that three federal funding sources attend the conference together: Ministry of the Attorney General Office in Ontario, Canada; federal Office on Violence Against Women (U.S. Department of Justice); and federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Valya Roberts continues her presidency.

THIS CONFERENCE not only took place in California the same year (2007, and prior to the article on Genia Shockome) but also mentions the three funding sources, includes the office of child support enforcement as one of them, and reveals the Access to Visitation Grant Program as a factor — and that this program has been going on for 10 years. ….

Instead the CASafeChildCoalition article (posted on one of the member sites) is going to talk about “parental alienation” and Richard Gardner like he was still alive, which he isn’t and wasn’t then, either….

The BARRY GOLDSTEIN FACTOR

A man lost his license to practice law over this case. Glenn Sacks (fathers’ rights loudmouth) is found crowing over this event in 2009. I notice Glenn Sacks conveniently doesn’t mention the funding either. These groups play off each other like soap operas in the press, while women such as myself, who need realtime help and better analyses, and without other prominent clues where to find it, end up sometimes wasting years (and/or money, if we go to conferences) in order to listen to this schlock and rhetoric. How likely is it that neither side knows about the grants behind the programming? You think Glenn doesn’t??

As if “feminist attorney” was a bad word!! Notice the organizations mentioned here. (Any press is good press, right?)

(NOTICE how a certain cluster of organizations is mentioned above…)

Here’s part of an August 2009 conversation from the same FamilyCourt Reform group that actually reported on Viola Stroud issue. this person is commenting on Barry Goldstein/Shockome:

My 2011? blogpost “GENIA SHOCKOME, JUDGE AMODEO, AND THE DUTCHESS COUNTY MEDIATION CENTER” is fairly self-explanatory. I have a lot of good detail in there, AND some tax returns. This is how I learn about things — I look them up!

Nevertheless, those who want a direct connection to Washington to fix the family courts are not interested in this type of information from mothers who may have something to say about it, and were affected by the system. No, just leave it to the behavioral health experts and trauma survivor speakers’ bureaus to figure out how to obtain a massive culture shift in the California Family Courts (sure, OK, right…..).

SHUT DOWN THE SUPERVISED VISITATION RACKET AND ITS FUNDING — EITHER PARENTS CAN BE TRUSTED TO SEE THEIR KIDS, OR THEY CAN’T! ALL THIS DOES IS FACILITATE FINANCIAL FRAUD, AND WASTE COUNTY/FEDERAL FUNDING. THIS WHOLE IDEA WS A COMPROMISE ANYHOW, FROM THE START!! IT SETS UP THE RACKET — JUDGE (OR COMMISSIONER), GRANTS FACILITATOR, AND CUSTODY EVALUATOR/VISITATION PROVIDER. IT’S SIMPLY FURTHER PRIVATIZATION OF GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE — NO WONDER WE ARE UNDER SUCH PRESSURE OVERALL!!

Not to mention a prominent case in California where one of the recommended providers was investigated for criminal assault on an ANIMAL (i.e., bestiality), in addition to having evidently participated in a slave/master relationship. Overall, it does seem to attract some seriously oddball characters. There PHENOMENALLY BAD things happening to children during this policy of taking children away from one (or both) parents and then paying others to supervise during reunification services. A fairly recent one from Trumbull County, Ohio, is just the tip of the iceberg. I’m thankful to hear that Nick Kerosky, in this case, resigned. it turned out that the center in which this child-rape and bestiality (Caught on cell phone) which occurred of an INFANT here were not only predictable, but the money for the centers was raised earlier by a state-wide “Children’s Levy” tax on everyone. Thanks to this, the US is even getting a bad reputation overseas with these outrages…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156013/Couple-raped-daughter-supervised-visit-recorded-sex-abuse-nephew-18-months-cellphone-contained-532-images-child-bestiality.html

I have brought this up time and again, and then noticed information disappearing off the internet about this particular case.
I attempted to raise it with a man who literally lost his license to practice law over the Genia Shockome case — but still refuses to address this part in his publications, advocacy, or conferences, that I can see. He still appears to believe that judges “just don’t know” who’s an abuser or batterer, and should be trained to tell the difference.

Let’s get real about this: Liz Richards and her network had it reported years ago — but no one really wants to handle this issue. Either they want access to the same funding stream, or they’ve been intimidated, perhaps, into silence?

We are also talking the intersection of probate and family law, i.e. things that could simply give judges the ability to assign known crooks who will sell off the assets of the vulnerable, and probably kick back some to the judges who appointed them. Of course, without a way to track it, who’s to know? (For more on this, see writing of Janet Phelan, on goings on in California courts. This one however, comes from more than one county in (I think), New York.

Please file under CONVICTED OF GRAND LARCENY — SEE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SUPERVISED VISITATION, MEDIATION PROJECT COORDINATOR
AND DISTRIBUTE TO YOUR FRIENDS WITH DIFFICULT CUSTODY CASES, AND TWEET, BLOG, ETC. — THIS HAS SEVERAL ELEMENTS OF FRAUD UPON THE PUBLIC (I.E., OF GRANTS MONEY) THROUGH THE COURTS TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AND THEREAFTER, UNTRACKED UNTIL IT’S TOO LATE.

FACT: private outsourcing by the courts to nonprofits are not properly tracked. Either this practice needs to stop, or internal controls sufficient to tracking them need to be enforced. Why doesn’t “Our Broken Family Courts Initiative” mention this, and seek to “fix” it? Could it be potential connections to the Children’s Rights Council and similar organizations involved in pushing the Supervised Visitation Model to start with? (see the SVN network for further references in who’s behind it.

This used to have a “History” page but I no longer see it. Look up corporation records at state of origin. Notice the fields of practice of the board members (conflicts of interest, much? See current board member Spurgin, of Texas, and work background).

Like most organizations of this sort, its actual purpose is to promote the profession, and make sure participants are held to centrally set policies, which may, or may not, have anything whatsoever to do with what the people who elected some of these jokers, or elected the people who appointed them to public office, may actually want…

Here’s a listing showing Viola Stroud as coordinator (see “putnam county”)
http://www.nald.ca/library/research/hudson/homeles2/page90.htm

“Putnam Mediation Project” brought up a glowing recommendation for the ADR services from New York State, under Judith Kaye. 24 pages of newsletter describes the wonderful programs, referencingi work by (California’s) Joan B. Kelly, and terms popularized in California by deliberate strategy and forethought. I’m pretty sure I blogged some of this: Kelly and Judith Wallerstein’s group, ADR, ACR, etc etc. This newsletter is from “The New York State Mediator” and should be carefully read to see how these programs are being promoted statewide as the solution to overcrowded courts.” Newsletter is Vol 18, 1999-2000.

The Dispute Resolution Center model is clearly big business and was getting funded, and pushed through the system for family law cases:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ip/adr/Publications/Annual_Reports/Ar97-98.pdf

This account is emotionally difficult (and disgusting) to read, but is around the same timeframe (2006) and same general geographic area (Northern California, Bay Area) that CJE, CPPA, and Child Abuse Solutins, Inc. (all of California Safe Child Coalition) deal with generally speaking. The San Francisco Bay Area is an urban area comprised of cities such as San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, etc. which are well-known nationally for a variety of reasons, i.e., UC Berkeley, Golden Gate Bridge, Oakland Earthquake of 1989, and many, many more major institutions. Among them, is a prominent violence prevention group which has been around since ca. 1989, Family VIolence Prevention Fund (now called Futures Without Violence). And there has also been plenty of news and press regarding various custody disasters.

I’m not sure if this one was news (having been busy with my own case at this time), however, here is a Supervised Visitation Provider not known for fraud — but for having contracted herpes, allegedly “from a woman or a dog.” This happened AFTER the cause had undergone the “De rigeur” //custody switch after restraining order — have mother’s head examined and put her on supervised visitation” shock therapy that mothers are going through these days.

Only, the supervised visitation provider in this case had been criminally prosecuted for sexual assault on a DOG !!. Yes, file this one under:

“CHILD VISITATION SUPERVISOR INVOLVED IN BESTIALITY AND MASTER/SLAVE SEX.”

If you dare.

Let’s keep im mind that this Supervised Visitation INdustry (federal access/visitation funding made available $10 million/year nationwide since 1996)is at least 10 years old at this time; however the organization most heavily promoting this theme, “Children’s Rights Council” (David Levy, et al.) is older//see their website… Of course Children Have the Right to potentially contract herpes from their supervisors in the name of the fatherhood industry and equal parenting, etc….

Someone narrated the case in detail, and you can see how there is a connection between approximately (at least) three individuals involved in the court — it takes a ring to complete such events: A commissioner (or judge) and evaluator, and/or a supervised visitation provider. Not to mention a prominent law firm:

The Family Law Court plotters certainly had their own agenda in the Welsh v. Tippie case and it had absolutely nothing to do with “the best interest of the child”.  It had everything to do with the twisted motives of the co-conspirators appointed and employed the courts.

The evidence shows that one of Commissioner Josanna Berkow’s first acts was to reject the 50/50 shared parentage plan originally promoted by county employed mediator Vicki McReynolds following a mediation meeting between the parents on February 4, 2005.  Father Brian Tippie had employed attorney Lisa Gilmore of Whiting Fallon & Ross on or about January 25, 2005 to promote his self-serving agenda.  Gilmore had filed papers two days prior to the mediation meeting that stated that Brian was concerned that mother Joyce was unstable and unable to properly care for the three children at this time. Commissioner Berkow reacted swiftly and 10 working days after the first mediator Vicki McReynolds submitted her recommendations, Berkow rejected that report.  On February 22, 2005 Berkow appointed Karen Hobbs Ph.D. as custody evaluator “to assess the mental health of the parties with respect to suicide threats”.  Total control to determine the mental health of the parties rests now with Ms. Hobbs as stated in the order: ” Psychological testing only as the evaluator deems necessary”.

{{That’s the setup. Get a certain custody evaluator in place, and after concerns of safety, play the “mental health” card….}}

Shortly after the Berkow order was issued, Brian Tippie had a meeting at Karen Hobbs’ office and gave her a list of people he believed would speak well of him. The second person on this list is the future Child Visitation Supervisor who he describes below:

As things developed, this supervised visitation provider had some serious personal problems…

The supervisor had arrived 45 minutes late for the visit on Saturday.  She had taken her ward to an ice cream store and she had picked up a soda before arriving at the Welsh home in Martinez.  Joyce, her dad, and the child’s siblings were anxious to have the little one arrive.  The child quickly gathered up Nosey and the supervisor put her soda down on a table.  The woman went into the other room to talk to Joyce.  The children were watching cartoons and grandpa was in the room with them reading. The supervisor began complaining to the mother that she had lesions on her chin and lips.  Then the supervisor made an announcement that was unbelievable.  She told Joyce Welsh that she had a herpes outbreak and that she got it from a dog or a women.

Joyce yelled at the supervisor telling her to get out of her home.  The command was so loud that Jack Welsh heard it in the front room.  The children had drank out of the cup of soda and realizing the danger to her children Joyce became angry.  The supervisor yelled back at the mother telling her she would take Joyce’s daughter with her.  She said she would go home and prepare a bad report to submit to the court and threatened that Joyce would lose custody of her child.  The woman was as good as her word, and two days later she prepared a report that was immediately faxed to Brian Tippie’s attorney, Lisa Gilmore.

[[this material is still hard to handle, but it lists a criminal complaint for the individual filed for sexual assault upon a dog. This is who gets approved, by sitting through trainings? to supervise visitations????]]

We seriously should question this industry. While here, I’d like to note that the commissioner involved in the custody switch in this case has sat on the board of the San Diego “Kids Turn” outfit, however, I noticed that prior to custody switch parents were ordered to attend a Kids Turn class, presumably from the same nonprofit (which is an A/V sub grantee from the California Judicial Council/AOC/CFCC who administers the grants). See “let’s get honest about kids’ turn and judges’ profits” posts. Again, no Safe Child Coalition is apparently about to take on this racket in their efforts to report how kids are getting hurt through the courts, or explain how it works. While the person reporting the above individual family law case (Welsh v. tip pie) says this well, I do not endorse the writers’ complaint that “no-contact orders” are the problem. As the “no contact orders” are only the red flag waved in front of a bull, and are not enforceable anyhow, they are probably insane.

However, this person has stated it correctly> The winners and losers are probably picked in advance of the actual hearings, and according to family wealth availability. I have also heard it said that the child is given to the overtly ‘wrong” parent because a good one will fight to get the child back — whereas another one will simply abandon the child otherwise, unless incited to fight through the child support factor:

(same link as above, Virginia McCullough) Psychologists, psychiatrists, special mediators, evaluators, therapists, court appointed attorneys for children and court appointed child visitation supervisors line up at the pig’s trough to feed off the finances of both parents.  What these greedy conspirators leave is nothing more then a skeleton of a family twisting in the wind waiting for the final blow to be delivered by a judge who covers for the heartless directives issued by family law commissioners.

There is a clear cut pattern that is followed by the courts to achieve its goal of awarding sole legal and physical custody to one of the parents. First the court predetermines which parent it will award the prize – the child – to in its final ruling.  A child in such a battle equals money because child support is awarded directly proportional to the amount of time a child spends with a parent.  So the child is reduced to the equation: child = $.  Already the court has lost sight of the “best interest of the child”.  The second part of the equation is that court cronies must be paid before any monetary considerations the court may give to other siblings or either parent.  Court papers clearly spell out the second part of the equation when they direct parents to refinance their homes to pay the co-conspirators who have built their financial kingdoms on the backs of family destruction.  Therapists and mediators reports then designate the “bad” parent.  The court acting in unison orders that that condemned parent can no longer visit with his or her own child without a court approved “child visitation supervisor”, paid for, of course, by the family’s dwindling finances.  The third act by the courts is to destroy the reputation of the parent out of favor with the court in order to support the reports flowing in from the court appointed experts additionally depleting the family’s resources.  Finally the court will order a psychiatric examination, therapy and/or medication to insure that the parent losing custody has a properly documented “mental” disorder. If that final attempt to give the court’s rulings credibility fails, the court will exercise its last resort – they will jail the offending parent.

The child at issue in the custody battle will usually find itself severed from one or the other parent and their extended family as a direct result of the court’s orders. (Click. Waging war in California’s Family Law Courts. No contact orders start the bloodshed)  The missing parent who loved and cared for the child without charge is now replaced by a very expensive court appointed “therapist” who must see the child as often as once a week.  The therapist’s job is to act as a spy to report to the court if the out of favor parent tries to visit with their own child. It is also the therapist’s responsibility to brain wash the child into believing that the court, the therapist and the court-favored parent knows what is best for the child.  The child must be brain washed into accepting the court’s “truth” even though the child is mourning a parent not really deceased but one who has been declared dead by the family law courts.

Thankfully the commissioner that ruled over this case now retired, I heard. Amazingly, the bestiality scandal didn’t cost her her high position of authority over children’s lives years ago, as it should have (her AND that custody evaluator).

In this context, “training judges” (or anyone else) to recognize who is and is not abusive is an oxymoron. They are already being trained — by AFCC and plenty of other entities.

To summarize, again, we can see that the powers complaining about kids going to the wrong parent, don’t talk about these matters -AT ALL, practically. Nor do they provide readers of their VOLUMINOUS writings and books, clear links, or indicators, how to look up county or other funding of the nonprofit providers of these services. It’s as though the economic world simply did not exist — hardly a rational pose for lawyers and Ph.D.’s psychologists to take, rationally speaking. Yet women seeking help, continue to follow them and avidly participate in the on-line debates and devour the reading material, because, unlike mainstream media, this actually speaks to the existence of “Trouble in Tahiti” regarding the issues they actually face — whether child abuse, domestic violence (and trying to stay alive or protect a kid) or being completely and in a devastating manner, separated from their children…

Just one more time for the road: At Mr. Goldstein ‘s website (or one of them), see links at the bottom, particular the one on “NCADV Workshop”
Legal Issues | Resources | About The Author | About the Book | Frequently Asked Questions | Useful Links | Custody-Visitation Scandal Cases | Media | NCADV Workshop | New Book | Crisis in the Custody Court System | Speaking Workshops & Training | DV in Higher Education
| Legal Ethics: Real and Imagined
You can send questions or comments to Barry Goldstein at the e-mail address below: Barryg78@aol.com

Workshops (it’s short, please read!) while undated, we can see the emphasis on TRAINING and WE are the EXPERTS because we do this full-time (never mind mothers themselves who might be the true “experts” as we have “experienced” what we’re talking about). NCADV invited Mr. Goldstein and Dr. Hannah to present at a NCADV conference in Washington DC. The problem is finding “Competant” (mis-spelled) representation for women. Of course, the book is mentioned and the usual run-down of the select group of experts meant by “the experts.”

NCADV is often mentioned here. The “scoop” (or A scoop at least) on the “National Coalition Against Domestic Violence” is, first and foremost — mothers cannot get direct help from them in any matters regarding domestic violence. For that, go see your statewide Coalition Against Domestic Violence, even if they are just going along with family court professionals (and fatherhood funding)…. Or assenting to programs like “parenting coordination” known to be hostile to mothers, etc. (PCADV has done this)….

It is a nonprofit membership organization with lots of corporate sponsors which also SELLS things. They do information, technical assistance, and no doubt write off travel expenses for their leadership to run around to various conferences and beome even more expert on things women know because we have experienced them — in marriage, in exchanging children (and/or raising them), in dealing with the child support agencies, and in family courts throughout the land. But our voices are not degreed, we are not PAID for this information (in fact, wealth is literally extracted from us,along with our kids) and hence, apparently our voices do not really count as much.

I have gone over this before, and could say similar (only ven mores) things about the group in Minnesota, i.e., “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs” (DAIP) or whatever they call themselves — those guys selling trainings to CCR the world and deliver utopia to us once everyone has been trained and understands that beating up on individuals to get your way is bad. (Unless you’re a country establishing democracy on the other side of the globe, where oil, or other desired assets, exist….).

Here’s the membership site for NCADV and its “BENEFITS.” I want you to notice that it takes a PERCENT of agency budgets. So although NCADV doesn’t get direct HHS funding (i.e., from the public through federal HHS grants or DOJ grants) — it DOES get INDIRECT funding In this way, policies are controlled in a more centralized fashion, and can restricdt or expand the % of money that goes to actual shelters, as opposed to those which go to (allegedly) preventing violence by educating people about what abusers act like, and how it’s wrong to abuse others.

http://www.ncadv.org/membership/MembershipBenefits.php
underneath the sliding scale of individual memberships, we get down to the good stuff — programs and agency memberships. (This is in addition to the NCADV store, where you can buy more goodies — if you have any cash…);

Non-Profit DV, SA or Dual Program—0.1% of your annual budget, ($250 minimum)

15% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings
NCADV electronic newsletters
Access to NCADV special publications such as The Voice: The Journal of the Battered Women’s Movement
One National Directory of Domestic Violence Programs for $84.95 (reg: $99.95)
Savings on Mutual of America’s Hotline Plus Retirement Plans
Discounts on ReadyTalk audio and web conferencing rates
Discounts and savings on AmCheck payroll processing services
Unlimited job and event postings on NCADV’s website
Other Non-Profit* or Government Agency** (includes law enforcement and military)—$250*/$300**

10% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings
NCADV electronic newsletters
Access to NCADV special publications such as The Voice: The Journal of the Battered Women’s Movement
Savings on Mutual of America’s Hotline Plus Retirement Plans
Discounts on ReadyTalk audio and web conferencing rates
Discounts and savings on AmCheck payroll processing services
Unlimited job and event postings on NCADV’s website
State Coalitions and National Organizations—0.1% of your annual budget, ($500 minimum)

15% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings
One free National Directory of Domestic Violence Programs
NCADV electronic newsletters
Access to NCADV special publications such as The Voice: The Journal of the Battered Women’s Movement
Savings on Mutual of America’s Hotline Plus Retirement Plans
Discounts on ReadyTalk audio and web conferencing rates
Discounts and savings on AmCheck payroll processing services
Unlimited job and event postings on NCADV’s website
Tribal Coalitions/Programs–$50

10% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings
NCADV electronic newsletters
Access to NCADV special publications such as The Voice: The Journal of the Battered Women’s Movement
Savings on Mutual of America’s Hotline Plus Retirement Plans
Discounts on ReadyTalk audio and web conferencing rates
Discounts and savings on AmCheck payroll processing services
Unlimited job and event postings on NCADV’s website
International Member—Add 10% to the membership level of your choice

10% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
One discounted NCADV conference registration fee

Isn’t that sweet? In addition to the above information about how great this nonprofit is doing, I’d like to add a commentary I believe others may share……

As a woman who filed a domestic violence restraining order with kick out 9in order to, with my children, stay alive and return to a semblance of a FUNCTIONAL life, participating in my community, and actually being able to choose where I work, have a bank account in my own name, another things that many non-abused individuals probably take for granted, for example, being allowed to show initiative and make a few personal decisions about one’s own life, including whether or not one gets to sleep at night, or it’s safe to come home, and obtaining transportation, etc., or negotiating with people locally to obtain good things for one’s children…. — to maintain personal relationships or participate in social activities outside the closed-circle home without being threatened by a jealous or paranoid ex. or threatened or accused for simply participating, forced to quit abruptly, etc. . . .) . . . Like many people, who were abandoned abruptly by these same nonprofits when our case was hauled into the family law venue . . . . I would be literally SCOURING the internet for sources of help. I looked and looked and looked at this particular NCADV — but there was nothing there to aadress, or help with my situation. YEAH, custody was going to batterers — but no one in the courts seemed to give a damn, and speaking about DV only made them angrier, and backfired. This lack of actual real help is throughout the DV system and a characteristic of its leadership. Rather, they want to conference, write, collaborate, consult, (sell product), teach, and technically assist. REAL assistance is basically off the radar. Yet they have no problem soaking up public funds for the noble cause.

So, I ask us to look at a possible different angle with the collaborations and endorsements by NCADV of Mr. Goldstein and other men who, while they see the problem, are not addressing its causes honestly enough to make a difference, which is a choice on their part.

You can see an undated reference to who Mr. Goldstein is hanging out with, (see also the main site for another flavor).
Mo Hannah actually knows quite well about the material Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net) has been reporting for years, and also knows about “Smartmarriage.com”, the so-called fathers’ “Cottage Industry” (which is nothing of the sort, it’s significant business!)

I finally “caught” a reference to Dr. Hannah conferencing alongside one of the marriage-promoting curricula workshops, as I have also previously caught NCADV being referenced and involved with fathers-type-funding. THey all know about it, but just choose NOT to tell their prospective market niche about these things.

IT SEEMS THAT THE BMCC BEGAN IN 2004. IN 2003, Three people edited a certain book which is being promoted (make that, “sold” or at least marketed) along with certifications to become an instructor, of the PAIRS program, courtesy SMartmarriage.com conference:

Look at the timing: Book published by three authors, two of who are very active in smart marriages.com, which helps people get on the marriage/fatherhood grants stream. Mo Hannah, to the extent this book is being sold through that stream, is a participant.

PAIRS is an organization which got HHS funding for its setup.

Now, ask yourself again why women attending BMCC, NCADV, or tuning into Barry Goldstein and friends — are not about to learn about this funding…

Again, “PAIRS” is a 501(c)3 and is in the franchise (training) racket. Why not — it’s where the free money is to be found, once you pay up in the pyramid? or is it direct marketing, scheme, by sitting through certifications.

Then you, too, can take money from n eery children and the households those children live in, a nd learn to lecture their parents on getting along better (abuse or no abuse) because everyone knows, two parents are ALWAYS better than one….

Also note, it’s trademarked…

“Skills for Successful Relationships™Best Practices in Marriage, Family and Relationship EducationFor more than a quarter century, the mission of the nonprofit PAIRS Foundation, a 501(c)(3) charity, has been to teach those attitudes, emotional understandings, and behaviors that nurture and sustain healthy relationships and to make this knowledge broadly available on behalf of a safer, saner, more loving world. We accomplish our mission by developing and delivering evidence-based, best practices in marriage, family and fatherhood education, conducting research, and training instructors worldwide.

That was “pairs.com” and this, below, is “training.pairs.com.” After a quick side trip to TAGGS.hhs.com (to confirm the public pays for this), then look in the box below, and You tell me whether this is a “cottage industry,” or maybe a booming business.

There’s a lot of money flowing around, so if one lowly visitation supervisor (etc.) in Dutchess County, Westchester County, or Putnam County, New York defrauds the elderly vulnerable, and the public, with a few thousand of her own, who’s to notice? — and why should Barry Goldstein mention the financial factor in any detail someone could follow up on it.

You know how long it took before I ran across PAIRS.com?? I remember how I felt on finding it (like, betrayed!)

HOPEFULLY YOU GET THE PICTURE — THESE ARE MARKETING FRANCHISES, AND ARE NOT GOING TO REPORT THE FUNDING, THE CORPROATE ANGLE, OR THE COUNTY-CONNECTIONS (CONTRACTS, SUCH AS THE VIOLA STROUD MATTER) IN ANY RESPONSIBLE MATTER.

Please tweet this post, ask people to vote AGAINST automatic re-authorization of welfare funding in March 2013, to stop the marriage/fatherhood diversions, and cut out the “good cop, bad cop” element from our national government.

Also notice the age, background, and religion of Lori Gordon — she was born in 1929! (( women barely had gotten the vote!))

Marriage and Family Therapist Lori Gordon, together with her late husband, Rabbi Morris Gordon, established the PAIRS Foundation in 1983 in Falls Church, VA as a 501(c)(3) non-profit charity chartered to develop programs for the prevention of marital and family breakdown.

Prior to founding PAIRS, Mrs. Gordon served as a faculty member of the American University School of Counseling Education in Washington, D.C. She received her undergraduate degree at Cornell University and Masters in Social Work from Catholic University.

Mrs. Gordon served as President of PAIRS from its founding through June 2008.

Mrs. Gordon was a Plenary presenter at the First Annual Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education Smart Marriages Conference in 1997 in Washington, DC. and has presented at its Annual Conference since then. In 2002 she was honored with their major Impact Award for having pioneered the PAIRS program. The Award reads:

“In appreciation of your intrepid pioneering work in creating the PAIRS program and for your visionary leadership in blazing a path for so many to follow.”

As I’ve said before, Dr. Mo Therese Hannah knows about this. She simply chose not to inform the followers up at BMCC about it.
Or that money for these programs is coming OUT of what would otherwise be allocated for their welfare, or child support enforcement (i.e., it’s diversions from money that’d otherwise come directly to help benefit them.). SMALL WONDER the new, improved (large) book on “Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and CUstody” has ZERO information on child support matters, at least as a separate chapter, and makes no mention of the grants stream!!

I have a 12,000 word post here. I hope it has encouraged people to dissociate from anyone who refuses to report in the funding matters, and is insisting instead that the courts are flawed, and just need the application of some more experts in what a Crisis we have on our hands. No matter how empathetic they may be, and no matter how much I personally would rather deal with a more tolerant masculine personality, and I DO appreciate the work of “NOMAS” — I have to still label this one under “DISHONEST.”

They are withholding information that could save lives. I could hardly respect that. And the information being withheld literally represents money coming off OUR backs — because these organizations literally take welfare money and divert them, and are producing, needlessly, situations that result in crime-scene cleanups.

Year after year, there are more crime scenes around custody matters, and these professionals recommend the SAME basic procedures — let us train judges, law enforcement, community, etc. etc.

Here is Mr. Goldstein going on about the same themes over at NOMAS. Notice item #10 Extreme cases (he doesn’t mention the deaths which we all know about because they are headlines!) — This is a shameless self-promotion of their book (see sample):

Under “HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE CUSTODY COURTS ARE SENDING CHILDREN TO LIVE WITH ABUSERS?”

 Mothers and domestic violence advocates have been complaining for many years about problems in the custody court system that have resulted in large numbers of children being sent to live with abusive fathers while safe, protective mothers are denied any meaningful relationship with their children.  Courts have tended to dismiss the complaints by referring to the mothers as “disgruntled litigants.”  As more concern about the problem has been expressed and more research performed, the mothers’ complaints have been confirmed.

Early in 2010, a new book co-edited by Dr. Maureen T. Hannah and Barry Goldstein, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY will be published and end any doubts that there is a pattern of mistakes made in the custody court system.  These mistakes have caused thousands of cases to be mishandled and placed the lives and well being of battered women and their children in jeopardy.  The book includes chapters by over 25 of the leading experts in the United States and Canada including judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists and domestic violence advocates.  Although these experts come from different disciplines and approached the issue from different directions, there is a remarkable consensus about the problem and the solution.

They appear to be coming from different directions, but in actuality, are not. The only primary differences is that the corps of these individuals are NOT also public employees in the form of magistrates, court-appointed GALS, court-contracted supervised visitation providers, employed by the Administrative Office of the Courts in one state or another, or in charge of disseminating the juicy federal grants, and what’s even better, being really GOOD at lobbying the legislatures to get THEIR version of laws passed….

And, Yes, isn’t it “remarkable” that the experts whose livelihood rests on continually disseminating their expertise (Publish or Perish, right?) and who wants to be bona fide, certified, court-consulting, federally-financed TRAINERS like, say, “AFCC” has managed to become — are ALL in agreement that what the worlds need now is MORE — and not LESS — of their expertise, while the body count keeps going on??

  The up-to-date research and information now available makes it clear that the present practices can no longer be justified and the custody court system must create the necessary reforms to protect the safety of children and protective mothers in domestic violence custody cases.  This article will discuss ten reasons we know the custody court system is broken and must be reformed.

. . . (Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah….)

“Now that we know the Custody Courts are Broken”.

NO, Mr. Goldstein (and friends), as you probably are at SOME level of your soul aware, if you would admit it to yourself (and then to the rest of us, please), the family courts are NOT broken, they have simply been already re-tooled even further in the direction of dispensing behavioral health, trafficking children in the foster care system and adopting them out, and basically destroying anyone who doesn’t like that idea. Their judges truly DO NOT CARE when people are murdered — there are more custody cases than judges to go around, and the parents are truly expendable, as are the children, when not in sue as a human resource.

Check out the response of Judge Adele Grubbs of Cobb County, Georgia at another avoidable knife-stabbing of a man who, having threatened to kill his wife and been arrested for this charge (stalking, harassment, terroristic threats, etc.), was released from jail, before Christmas, just in time to do so, creating two young adolescent (in effect) orphans. In this case (which was emailed to me) the mother made SURE she got on the court record that if she were not granted protection, it would be too late next time, she was afraid for her life.

From the Marietta Daily Journal, 12/28/2012 (with a clear photo of the judge involved):

Judge Adele Grubbs
ATLANTA (AP) — A woman stabbed to death in her suburban Atlanta home had pleaded with a judge not to release her ex-husband from jail, saying she feared she would not survive if he was free.

The ex-husband, 58-year-old John Stephen Kristofak, was apprehended Thursday at a Union City motel and charged with murder in the death of his 48-year-old ex-wife, Donna Nations Kristofak.

In October, Donna Kristofak begged Cobb County Superior Court Judge Adele Grubbs not to release him from jail, saying she feared for her life and worried that a court order of protection from her ex-husband would not keep her safe. He was later released.

The judge said she couldn’t comment on the case, but told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that “you cannot predict human behavior.”

The judge said that people asked a similar question after 20 children and six adults were gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Conn.

“After Newtown people ask, ‘How can we stop someone before they do something?,'” Grubbs said. “We don’t do that.”

___
http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/21260257/article-Slain-east-Cobb-woman-begged-judge-not-to-free-her-ex?mobile_view=false

This Judge’s statement is BS. Here’s the “we can’t predict human nature” behavior he was arrested for, after failing to respect a temporary restraining order:

According to a March 28 warrant for his arrest, John Kristofak, in violation of a temporary restraining order, “did contact the victim for the purpose of harassing, threatening and intimidating her.”
Between March 9 and March 19, Kristofak “called the victim’s place of work 12 times and used vile, vulgar language to her and her coworkers,” the warrant stated.
The warrant also accused Kristofak of sending an e-mail to Donna Kristofak on March 19, that read, “you are in danger – protect yourself. No one can help you at this point. You won’t know where it is coming from.”
Another e-mail sent four minutes later read, “I warned you never cut me off from my children. You did and you will pay,” according to the warrant.
Minutes later, another e-mail allegedly asked his wife, “have you ever been hit by a car going 140 not knowing where it’s coming from?”
Later that evening, John Kristofak allegedly advised his wife in an e-mail to “make your final goodbyes with your children.”
John Kristofak was arrested on the first warrant on March 29, and a day later, a second warrant for aggravated stalking was issued, alleging that he followed his wife in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart, and “at one point pulled his vehicle in front of Donna’s in an attempt to stop her from leaving.”

They released him just in time to allow this murder the weekend before Christmas.

Cases like this are a clear statement to women and mothers hoping the courts might protect them to “get real — we don’t take this seriously. But go get a restraining order anyhow, its’ good for the grants to law enforcement.”

This judge sits atop the CJJDP (look it up).

Obituary requests donations to the teenaged sons scholarship fund. Probably Dad will be in prison now.

In this context, I don’t think it’s a matter of judges or anyone else failing to recognize what is, and is not, a dangerous situation. It’s about the money. Remember what neither Barry nor Mo Hannah told us about it, either, and let them do their own publicity, if you’re a mother in a custudy challenge. Empathy is nice, but can be obtained in many places. It doesn’t stop bullets or knives, or prevent kidnappings — and it doesn’t enforce child support orders any better than restraining orders; however, what you don’t know about that whole field MIGHT help get any child support for your kids eliminated (Compromise of Arrears) while they are minors. Alternately, you can pay the former batterer or abuser.

Again, “Mo Knows” but she’s not talking about it. I suspect Barry does, but doesn’t want to talk about it (I may try one more time to communicate to him), and in general, you don’t need to be a neurosurgeon to figure out that there’s a reason for the collective, corporate silence on these matters, while no need of publications and press about Coercive Control, Batterers, you name it.

Sorry to be that blunt about it, but I see the movements gathering momentum.
Alternately, read Walter Burien and help others get some of our own tax revenue reduced, and force government to operate at less of a profit.